Saturday, November 19, 2005

Skip the conspiracy theory

editor's notes

Boy, you'd think I'd been dipping little kittens in boiling oil on the Plaza at noon.

It was just an editor's note, but we've certainly found out how the anti-aspartame crowd feels about 1) government agencies, 2) national health associations, and 3) editors who attach editor's notes to their comments.

For those who aren't aware, there is a vocal group of New Mexicans — with many vocal supporters nationwide — who want the state to ban the use of aspartame in a lot of products. Aspartame is an artificial sweetener best known under the brand name NutraSweet. It is the sweetener in most diet soft drinks, but is used in hundreds of products, including children's medication and vitamins.

The New Mexico group has been successful in getting the state Environmental Improvement Board and the state Board of Pharmacy to schedule hearings on the topic, which it hopes will lead to a ban, at least in children's products.

Last week we ran an anti-aspartame letter from one of the leaders of the New Mexico group, a letter that contained some substantial claims about the effects of aspartame. I felt it necessary to add an editor's note pointing out that the claims in the letter were in dispute and such organizations as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, the American Diatetic Association, the American Diabetes Association and the National Institutes of Health have declared aspartame to be safe.

The reaction I got surprised me because I've viewed these anti-aspartame folks as fair, rational, caring people advocating for their cause. I really wasn't expecting a bunch of wild-eyed fanatics toting a ton of conspiracy theories.

Most of the e-mails I've received stop short of calling me a baby-killer, but not far short. All of them assumed I hadn't looked at any of the arguments and studies on their side (I had), that I want children to die needlessly (I don't) and all of them accused me of siding (I didn't) with the lying, corrupt FDA, AMA, ADA (both of them) and NIH, organizations they believe are on the take and would rather allow kids to die en masse than tell the truth to the American people. We ran three of the letters responding to the editor's note.

I tend to be suspicious of conspiracy theories, especially one as large as these folks see behind aspartame. I'm as cynical as the next guy, but the idea that numerous public and private agencies, whose mission is to protect the public health, would be so corrupt as to let people die for kickbacks or to protect their funding stream — and do so for decades without somebody blowing the whistle — seems a little outlandish. And, as with many conspiracy theories, there's lots of conjecture with little proof.

Nonetheless, I found one of the letters somewhat convincing until the writer went off on a tangent with the claim that "the Veteran's Administration proved the cure for diabetes in a study completed over 30 years ago."

Excuse me? And nobody knows this because ...? Another conspiracy?

For all I know, these folks could be right about aspartame. There's a tremendous amount of research — some good, some bad — on both sides. I'm no scientist, however, and this is definitely a question for science to resolve.

But name-calling, questioning motives or attacking any suggestion there's another point of view does nothing to help the anti-aspartame cause.

This debate calls for rational discussion, reliable facts and provable research, not outrageous conspiracy theories.

E-mail this story Printer-friendly version